The Nazi theft of books

Posted by on

During the Second World War some 5 million art objects were stolen by the Nazis. Just as important, between 100 and 200 million books, rare or otherwise, were stolen or burned.

While rare books and manuscripts can have a sale value rivaling artworks, most of the books stolen by the Nazis were not financially valuable. The Nazi art theft bureau, the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter, had two main purposes: to ‘unarm’ their enemies by taking away the weapons of thought — books, libraries, archives. From the Nszi point of view Poles, for instanvce, were being reduced to slavery and needed neither education nor thought.

Secondly, by looting the libraries and archives of their enemies, the Nazis tried to take control of the memory and history of the victims. Fearful that even if the Nazis won the war, future generations would judge the Nazis for their crimes, the Jews had to be painted as an incarnation of evil for all future generations. The objective was to obliterate the libraries and re-write history according to Nazi ideology. “Real” history books lurking in libraries were like time bombs that could prompt people in the future to question the tailored version of reality.

While a minority of academics, editors, scientists, fact-checkers and students still use books in libraries, regarding them as being reasonably reliable, most people now go online for “facts” and read sites like Wikipedia, which anyone can alter (for better or worse). A contemporary version of the Nazi book theft would be if, say, some presidential candidate — in league with some superpower in opposition to the country where that candidate was running for office — were to somehow take over the entire internet and erase fact-based pages, in order to replace them later on with histories of their choosing. After a generation or so, the world might forget how history had been presented beforehand and learn only this newly imposed version of events. Logistically, a cyber-conspiracy of this sort would be easier to pull off than seizing every single book across an entire continent. (a precised version of a review of “The Book Thieves,” by Swedish journalist Anders Rydell, in the European Review.)

We now have an American Administration for whom the truth is suspect and alternative facts can reliably be promoted over 24 hour news channels thirsty for the next horror. If Trump can casually endanger the whole future of the human race by pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement, calling climate change a “hoax”, and propose to sell millions of acres of beautiful public lands and national parks created by successive Administrations since Theodore Roosevelt to his rich chums for their mineral deposits, what other horrors has he is store for us? A re- writing of history into the bargain?

We should be frightened, very frightened. There has to be a point when all this stops. We cannot wait until 2020.

The UK General Election: A brief but definitive guide

Posted by on

I must apologise for my last post on the UK General Election. It was an excessively long, rambling piece that covered everything I was thinking about regarding British politics at the time. I was angry, despondent and confused. I felt so let down by politicians on all sides, that I failed to come to a definitive conclusion having ranted about the deplorable state of affairs for so long.

Having put my emotions to one side, in a Stoic but not necessarily Epicurean fashion, I feel I can now give a succinct guide on how to vote in the British General Election, or at least how to feel should any one party gain power. I will then give my own personal view on who to vote for, though I must concur with last month’s exposition insomuch as I don’t believe there are any good options. I regard Brexit to be a catastrophic error of judgement on behalf of the British people, yet I don’t believe the decision to leave can be reversed. The increasing inflation, slowed GDP growth and increasing irrelevance on the world stage we are already seeing, are but a small preview of what is to come.

If your primary concern is climate change, then there’s a solid case to vote Green. Climate change threatens the whole of humanity, and can only be mitigated through decisive government action. This means strong curbs on carbon emissions, including a carbon tax, and a ban on new carbon-based energy sources, particularly arctic drilling and fracking. The Greens are also very socially liberal, and propose an economic policy based on social justice and a responsibility to help the poorest in society. My worry with the Greens is twofold: that due to the single-member plurality voting system, a vote for them will hand seats to the Conservatives, and that their policies are unaffordable, however good their intentions. But if you live in a safe Conservative seat, a vote for the Greens is a good way of expressing dissatisfaction with the establishment’s authoritarianism and disregard for the importance of environmental issues.

Quite frankly UKIP are a dead party. Since the UK voted to leave the EU, the party has lost its raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean that UKIP’s policies have become less popular. Rather, the Conservative Party has moved to the Right on Brexit and the social issues, in order to appeal to UKIP’s voters. In response to Theresa May’s support for a ‘hard’ Brexit, UKIP has resorted to blatant Islamophobia and open anti-immigrant sentiment. The polls show the party will be punished for this, and quite rightly so.

I have very mixed feelings about the Liberal Democrats. On the one hand, I admire their stance on Brexit. Aside from the Greens, they are the only unapologetically pro-European party electable across Britain. Their support for a second referendum on the final terms of the Brexit negotiations, with an option to remain in the EU, is certainly tempting. But on all other issues, the Liberal Democrats’ attempts at reform are piecemeal. The UK is clearly a country which desires radical change, as the Brexit vote demonstrated. In response, the Liberal Democrats have promised effectively cosmetic reforms to politics, which will effectively amount to nothing. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have become the pro-establishment party, rather than recognising fundamental reforms as necessary. I would only vote for them if there is a chance that should they lose, an extreme and prejudice candidate would become an MP. I would not vote for them as a first preference.

I understand that there are many Epicureans who may desire independence for Scotland or even Wales. I don’t believe that a longing for national self-determination is inherently a bad thing. But in practice, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have to be honest about what the consequences of independence would be. At least in the short to medium term, independence would mean very harsh austerity measures for both Scotland and Wales, because neither nation would be any longer eligible for English subsidies via the Barnet Formula. They would immediately face large budget deficits, comparatively weak economies and a low credit rating. If you believe that the cause of independence is worth making the working class worse off for the foreseeable future, than be honest and say that. But if you don’t, you ought not to vote SNP or Plaid Cymru.

The state of the governing Conservative Party is frankly frightening. Many in the Conservative ranks believe that leaving the EU will have no severe economic consequences, even if there are no provisions for continued trade agreements and service relations. This so-called ‘clean Brexit’, which would result in Britain facing substantial tariffs and barriers to services, would make everyone worse off, but Britain more so than the EU. No amount of free trade deals with the rest of the world could realistically offset such a loss. To suggest that Brexit cannot go badly for Britain is madness. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest to liberal swing voters that Brexit will result in a more open and globalised Britain, while at the same time appealing to former UKIP voters with promises of vastly reduced immigration and a return to the values of the 1950s. It is certain that if the Conservatives win the election, a substantial proportion of the electorate will feel immensely disappointed.  The Conservatives have also abandoned their economic principles. By accepting that intervention in the market is necessary, such as their promise to have workers on company boards, or their proposals to cap energy prices, they have essentially lost the argument about the virtues of free market capitalism. The Conservative manifesto explicitly rejects the individualism of  the libertarian right. But then if market interventionism is good, why not intervene in the market properly, and give public services the funding they need? Like the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives promise an unsatisfactory compromise of a policy programme that will end up pleasing no one.

The Labour Party is full of faults. It is hopelessly divided between its socialist and more moderate wings. It has unrealistic proposals on how to balance the budget, which is doesn’t seem to regard as a priority. It promises big spending increases as the answer to virtually every problem, when in a globalised world more comprehensive and imaginative solutions are required. I find its appetite for class warfare distasteful. As someone who is part of a family that earns more than £80 000 a year, I don’t want to be labelled as part of the problem. I also don’t agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s foreign policy views, particularly on the Northern Ireland conflict, the Falklands Wars, or his view of the War on Terror as a neo-imperial phenomenon, rather than a well-intentioned attempt to deal with radical Islamist terrorism.

Having said that, the Labour Party is by far the most authentic force in British politics at the moment. It is unapologetically committed to its brand of socialism. It is no longer embarrassed by its trade union roots, or its dedication to the wellbeing of the working class. Jeremy Corbyn has run a campaign relatively free of spin, lies, exaggeration or fear-mongering. True to his word, he has presented a genuine and decisive alternative to Tory rule, using the language of the ordinary working man- not the jargon and politically correct platitudes of many professional politicians. And regardless of the result on Thursday, he has at least somewhat succeeded. A month ago, Theresa May seemed unassailable. But now, many predict that the Conservatives will lose seats, perhaps even an overall majority. That is a formidable achievement, one that should not be downplayed, even taking into account May’s own unforced errors. It is with considerable reservation and nervousness, that I endorse Labour for this election. Britain should at least give an unadulterated form of socialism a chance. I am far from certain as to how successful it would be. But I am certain that the unambitious reforms of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the soft bigotry of UKIP, and the unrealistic utopianism of the Greens- would all end in failure. The working class is dying for radical change. Now, we as voters, must choose to deliver it.

 

More on climate change

Posted by on

Older and Republican-leaning Americans think the April “March for Science” in Washington was a waste of time, according to a poll of 1012 adults by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC. Sixty per cent of Republicans and 54 per cent of those aged 65 and up dismissed the march as pointless, whereas a majority of both Democrats and younger adults thought it would increase public support for science.

I haven’t seen statistics on the subsequent Climate March, in which my wife and I participated, but it’s a safe bet that the same older and Republican-leaning Americans thought that was a waste of time as well. So thorough hss been the climate skeptical propaganda, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord will be shrugged off by all too many ill-informed people who voted for the man, denying that they were contributing to planetary disaster for their grandchildren. Any more words fail me.

Learning about climate change, (1 of 2 posts on climate change)

Posted by on

A comprehensive survey of science teachers at middle and high schools across the US, conducted by the journal “Science”, finds that teachers generally devote a paltry 1 to 2 hours to the topic of climate change, and despite the fact 97 per cent of experts agree climate change is mainly human-caused, many teachers still “teach the controversy”, suggesting a sizeable “consensus gap” exists. The survey showed seven in 10 teachers mistakenly believe that at least a fifth of experts dispute human-caused climate change.

Vested interests in fossil fuels, led by the Koch brothers and Exxon, have spent tens of millions of dollars to create the impression of a consensus gap, orchestrating a public relations campaign aimed at attacking the science and the scientists, and confusing the public about the reality and threat of climate change. They also created a partisan political divide on the issue, most evident in the US.

Our children will bear the brunt of the climate crisis, battling coastal inundation, extreme weather, withering droughts and devastating floods. We owe it to them not only to give them the facts, but to help them clean up the mess that we created.
(Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University).

This nonsense about the science of climate change is not confined to schools. You encounter it frequently, although rarely among well-informed and educated people. Members of Congress, supplicants at the tables of the oil and gas companies, are particularly guilty. I think there should be a memorial set up on the Mall in Washington DC. The monument should read

“To the irresponsible, greedy and short-sighted people who fought the idea of man-made climate change, and thus bequeathed to future generations flood, tempest, starvation, drought, unpredictable weather, and mass migration. Their companies and CEO’s are listed below. May They be forgiven.”

The Islamist threat

Posted by on

A propos the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations:

“These are not an organizations that can destroy the United States. But they can hurt us and they can hurt our people and our families. And so I can understand why people are worried. The most damage they can do, though, is if they start changing how we live and what our values are.” (President Obama, NPR on Dec. 21, 2015).

What worries me is that in combating the Islamists and throwing out large numbers of Latinos, the new American Administration will undermine the social trust of the country and the very freedoms and liberties enshrined in the Constitution. Already, the entry ban on moslems from certain countries sends a bad message around the world, as does the “wall” and the big increase in deportations. Will the US remain a moderate and tolerant country, or go into a selfish funk? Obama was calm and rational in tumultuous and troubling times; now we have something very different that appeals to our more unpleasant, selfish and suspicious instincts, and calls into question whether we still retain the old values nationally.

I cannot help returning in my mind to the days of the 1960s, when America was generous, trusting, and Americans themselves actually wanted to get to know you, hear your views and listen to opposing points of view. Of course, it’s not hard to look back with rose-coloured spectacles on your nose and ignore the vitriol spewed forth on the rightwing press. Conspiracy theories were just as common then (one couple told me in all seriousness that the UN was contrlling the water supply and starting to poison it. The UN attracted particular venom). It is also true that racism was shocking at that time. But most people still ardently believed in freedom, the Constitution and plain, honest dealing. Society was more equal than today, and middle class people were earning good money. All this has changed; intolerance and hostility towards the opposing political party can be felt at all levels. How do you set the clock back?

What can be said about America can be said about Britain, the object of the ideological murders of harmless teenagers in Manchester. Unexpectedly, there is the same shock and horror, but more resignation and less hysteria than expected. No spontaneous assaults in the street, no revenge murders etc. There are moslem women on the street in our neighbourhood, their heads covered, but as afar as I know, no vitriol directed at them. That, at least, is a blessing.